


The Strand Institute Newsletter

by QuantumDippinDots



Category: The Black Tapes Podcast, skepticism - Fandom
Genre: Atheism, Epistolary, Excessive wordiness, Gen, Infotainment, Newsletter, No outside editing - Caveat Lector, Scathing review of a romance novel, Special Thanks to Wikipedia, Special Thanks to the rest of the Internet too, slow start, wikipedia - Freeform
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2017-04-05
Updated: 2017-05-12
Packaged: 2018-10-15 05:04:41
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 5
Words: 14,179
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/10550534
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/QuantumDippinDots/pseuds/QuantumDippinDots
Summary: The Strand Institute's monthly newsletter, from around the start of The Black Tapes.





	1. 1503

**1503**

##  **Strand Institute Newsletter**

Well well well, another month down, and what have we been up to here at the Strand Institute? What _haven’t_ we been up to? Dr. Strand has a new paper out in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and we headed to Philadelphia for a conference on folklore (what a city! I can’t wait to go back)! And of course we’re bringing you the Strand Institute Person of the Month, community letters, and more! 

\- Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award**

Has not been awarded. Keep ‘em coming, folks! Your vertically filmed, shaking videos keep me in a job here at the Strand Institute!

-Melissa Baker

 

**Highlights**

Richard Strand, Xiang Liu, and Julienne Deil-Furrow publish “Impact of Religiosity on General Anxiety Disorder Sufferers’ Engagement with Counseling and Psychiatric Intervention” in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The researchers evaluated the religiosity of subjects, and then examined how this correlated with both their willingness to engage with and their attitudes towards counseling and medical interventions as treatment for General Anxiety Disorder. The attrition rate of patients, the degree to which patients followed treatment instructions, and the attitudes patients expressed toward treatment are analyzed.

If you’re interested in the psychology of religion, we’d recommend taking a look.

\- Dr. Richard Strand

 

Melissa and I attended a one-off conference set up by the American Folklore Society, titled “Folklore, Family, and Heritage.” The topic of interest was how the tales passed down within families shape identities and social connections. I discussed some of my previous work on “curse” mythologies and the effects they have on kin groups and communities, and also participated in a panel on Religion and the Family. Some of the stand-out talks were Dr. Ann Robinson on the oral histories of slavery passed down by the descendants of slaves in rural southern Georgia and Dr. Frank Kelly on the role of immigration stories in Irish American communities, as well as Dr. Fiona Ali’s wonderful discussion on her ethnography of a number of families from “haunted” Doverside – I was lucky to have a few words with her about some of our mutual academic interests.

-Dr. Richard Strand

 

I looked into another “Bigfoot sighting” this month. It was obviously a staged production. I was actually able to get in touch with a local store owner, who revealed that “Wildstar Searchers,” who sent in the video, had spent quite a lot of money on a realistic ape costume and the camping gear shown in the video just a month before. Unfortunately, publishing this information has made only a small dent in the video’s presence on social media and the followers these frauds have gained. I encourage anyone who sees this nonsense being peddled by those in their own lives to expose and denounce the “cryptozoologists” as the charlatans they are. Please, tell everyone who spreads this that they too can purchase “Bigfoot” on Amazon for only 199.99$ and that they absolutely must stop sharing it on their Facebooks and their Apps.

-Dr. Strand

 

We’re starting the final editing process for my upcoming book, _Epistemology as Applied by Scientists and Laymen_. It’s an exciting look into how people decide that they “know” something in the academic realm and outside of it, complete with real case studies I’ve observed. This book has been an exciting project for us, and I hope it sparks public discussion about what it means to know something and how we can all accurately gain knowledge in our day to day lives, armed with the scientific method.

-Dr. Strand

 _Epistemology as Applied by Scientists and Laymen_ is a working title, so there’s a possibility that this will change.

-Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Person of the Month: James Randi**

James Randi is one of the co-founders of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation. A couple months ago, he retired from the JREF after a long career as a magician, a paranormal investigator, an activist, and an educator.

Randi had an illustrious career as a magician before and during his work in skeptical investigation, a career trajectory he shares with a number of other paranormal investigators. Those who study illusion to entertain, and to broaden minds, are often the harshest critics of con artists that enter the field to profit off of the naiveté of the uninformed.

Randi’s first high profile case was the “psychic” Uri Geller, whom he was instrumental in discrediting. In 1976, he co-founded the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), one of the leading bodies in skeptical, scientific, proper investigations of extraordinary claims.

In the Project Alpha hoax, Randi pulled the covers off the sorry state of “parapsychology” “research.” He embedded two fake psychics into a research project, and they proceeded to fool a team of “researchers” using various magician’s tricks. After leaking results and criticizing their abysmal protocols, the “researchers” were forced to conduct more rigorous experiments and subsequently admit that they could produce no evidence for psychic abilities. The exposure of the (self-confessed) fake psychics drew attention to just how silly the “parapsychology” scene really was, and resulted in some labs being shuttered on account of not actually conducting valid science. He used similar techniques to debunk “faith-healer” Peter Popoff and to expose the absence of critical thought in the media with a fake “spirit-channeler.”

Randi went on to found the JREF in 1996, launching the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. Over a thousand people have submitted themselves for inspection, but Randi and his colleagues have exposed them all. This challenge has brought a great deal of attention to skepticism and helped shed light on the lack of real evidence for paranormal phenomena.

Randi’s lifetime of bringing critical thinking and reason into the popular discourse, of exposing the chicanery of “psychics” and the bungling irresponsibility of so many paranormal “researchers,” has made the world a better place. 

-Dr. Strand.

 

**Recommendations**

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-science-of-superstition/384962/

The Atlantic’s article on “The Science of Superstition” serves as an introductory overview of how the human mind is inclined to find meaning in the outside world and brings up some really excellent pieces of research on the subject. The article explains how these psychological tendencies can manifest even in those trained to think logically and rationally.

Furthermore, this article contributes to a greater understanding of psychology, an understanding that is essential to fostering a rational culture. When people are made aware of the superstitious instincts embedded in their psychology, they have the tools they need to recognize when they are simply responding to primal fears and desires for meaning. They can then direct themselves to set aside these gut reactions and think reasonably. By remaining vigilant and challenging one’s irrational, emotional responses, anyone can learn to become rational and level-headed – but to do this, they must first recognize when they are being irrational.

This article is accessible to a broad range of audiences. It’s the kind of engagement we need if we, as a society, are to progress.

\- Dr. Strand.

 

**Melissa’s Corner**

So, the “Folklore, Family, and Heritage” conference was great! (I really enjoyed Dr. Robinson’s talk)! Anyways, Dr. Strand covered that! But what else did we do in Philly, you ask? We headed to the UPenn Museum of Archeology and Anthropology. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, folks, visiting a museum with Dr. Strand is a real treat. Museums are fun on their own, but add in expert commentary? Can’t beat it. I also got Dr. Strand to go to this fantastic Thai restaurant! Whenever I get him out to eat he always says the food is great, he loves it, all the good things, but then it’s right back to tuna sandwiches and Brussels sprouts and all of that bland boring stuff day after day. I don’t know how he stands it. We also went to this really cool little out of the way cafe. Dr. Strand was pretty happy with their tea selection and we both got some awesome bagel sandwiches for breakfast (total foodie here, I know – and I’ve got to say, Dr. Strand is a tea nut, I swear he knows all of them!) Anyways, the weather was pretty good for our trip, too, so that was awesome!

 

On another note, I have gotten so used to looking at cell phone videos, you guys. We get all these low quality shaky videos taken in the dark. About half are sent in because of mysterious paranormal shadows… also known as, uh, shadows. Most of the rest are painfully obvious effects. Anyways, the real question is why so many people insist on filming vertically. It’s a plague. Please, whether you are a skeptic or a believer, learn to turn your damn phone over and film a proper horizontal video when you want to document your dog’s extremely spooky shadow or whatever. It’s just common decency. 

 

Finally, I want to thank Dr. Strand for the tremendous help (and recommendations!) in my applications for Masters in Religious Studies programs. As much as I _love_ working here at the Strand Institute, I plan on going back to school in the fall, and Dr. Strand has been so supportive and so helpful throughout the process. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

 

**Letters**

Dr. Strand,

I really liked the panel on Religion and the Family at “Folklore, Family, Heritage.” I appreciated that there was a critical voice on the panel pointing out some of the unhealthy dynamics religion can bring out, especially since the chair was so weirdly enthusiastic about religion and the “affirmation in faith dynamic” or whatever. I feel that too many people are willing to ignore bad stuff if they aren’t affected personally. I’m in graduate school but every time my parents find out I’m dating someone they track her down and demand to know her religious beliefs. Just last month I really hit it off with this super cute girl from the sociology department and I thought it was going really well, but I guess my parents saw pictures on Facebook and got her contact info from there because she called me and told me she wasn’t interested in being born again and maybe we should see different people and I said just ignore my parents I’m not even a Christian and she said well your family seems pretty intense I don’t think I’m up for it and she’s been avoiding me around work since and it’s just the worst because we got along so well and I really thought that for once something would go right and we would have a chance and maybe we would fall in love or something. I just want a normal relationship that lasts longer than a couple months, not to mention, I thought leaving fundamentalism meant I could finally try out sex and stuff… And I still haven’t told my parents I’m an atheist. That probably won’t go well. Anyways, thank you for your perspective! I’m looking forward to your new book!

-Mike P., Baltimore MY

 

Thank you, Mike. I’m sorry about your family situation. If possible, you may want to consider seeing a counselor to discuss strategies for negotiating boundaries with your parents.

Best of luck,

-Dr. Strand.

 

Why have you not replied to award the strand institute proof of paranormal prize to me I sent you proof of the ghost in my house and you own me a answer you pack of [expletive]’s I know youve seen it and I know you know its true you [expletive]’s so [expletive] pay up.

-Wade R., Tupalump TX

 

Dear Wade, your picture of a “ghost” is very obviously the girl from The Ring Photoshopped into someone’s basement. As such, we cannot award you the Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award. 

-Melissa Baker

 

**Just for Fun**

Well folks, I had an anthropology joke for you, but I realized it doesn’t make sense in most cultural contexts…


	2. 1504

**1504**

##  **Strand Institute Newsletter**

 

Hello skeptics! We’ve been super busy here at the Strand Institute, but we’ve still managed to whip up this month’s newsletter for your enjoyment! We’ve got wisdom From The Desk Of Dr. Strand, a ghost story (spooooky), a Melissa story (spooooky) (OK not really) and more! So get stuck in!

\- Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award**

Has not been awarded. Think you’re psychic? Tell me about it. I’m on the clock.

-Melissa Baker

 

**Highlights**

One of our solved cases may be published in an anthology of “notable paranormal debunkings.” Special thanks to our publisher, Jenna Yates, for getting this in the works. Also, we’re moving along with _Epistemology in the Wild – How We Know What We Think We Know, and How We Learn What We Really Know._

-Dr. Strand

_Epistemology in the Wild – How We Know What We Think We Know, and How We Learn What We Really Know_ is a working title. Keep your eyes peeled for updates.

-Melissa Baker

 

This month I traveled to Wisconsin to investigate a “haunted” pub. The proprietors, Mr. and Mrs. Meyers, live above the tavern, and had been experiencing an overwhelming sense of dread, accompanied by strange noises, missing items, and other alarming occurrences. I’ve talked to many people who think ghost hunting is exciting, glamorous, mysterious – but the reality is that often times we’re just doing the gas technician’s job for free. We’re very happy to add another case of carbon monoxide poisoning averted to our record. This is just one example of how the propagation of “paranormal” superstitions put people in real, grave danger. All too often, the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning are taken as a “haunting,” causing leaks to go undetected until the victim suffers serious injury or death. Fortunately, the Meyers have been receiving medical treatment and are expected to make a full and speedy recovery.

-Dr. Strand

[Meyers_and_Pub.png]

_Larry and Barb Meyer pose in front of their pub, The Green Accordion._

 

I attended a workshop here in Chicago this month on Methodology in Experimental Psychology. I presented on subject recruitment and selection; I discussed how to optimize the process and obtain subjects that are as representative as possible. I also talked about how to take into account religious attitudes and beliefs in experimental design. Dr. Marion Fenway did a fascinating seminar on naturalistic observation in the field of psychology, covering how it can be used to avoid observation effects as well as various techniques researchers can implement to ensure rigor and objectivity when processing the data they gather.

-Dr. Strand

 

Dr. Strand and I tried to go to an open house for the Greater Chicago Medium Society, but security recognized him and came up to us in the atrium of the hotel it was in. The mall cops they’d dredged up to cover this shindig grabbed Dr. Strand by the arm without even talking to him, and when I tried to tell them to stop manhandling him they grabbed me too. So we got dragged out of there with extreme prejudice. Dr. Strand got a bruise on his arm from one of them. The things we do for science and truth. (OK, I’ll admit, that was melodramatic, but seriously you should have seen them dragging Dr. Strand out of there! They used two guys! I guess the psychics are really afraid of anyone looking too closely at them…)

-Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Person of the Month: James Alcock**

Dr. James Alcock is a Professor of Psychology at York University, a fellow at the Canadian Psychological Association, a fellow and executive council member at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and a member of the editorial board of _The Skeptical Inquirer._ Alcock’s _Parapsychology-Science or Magic?_ Is a great, accessible book that helped bring many to critical thinking both within and outside of the “field” of parapsychology, including reformed paranormal believer Dr. Chris French. Alcock is also a faculty member and lecturer for the _Skeptic’s Toolbox_ , a superb four-day workshop on scientific skepticism.

Alcock has investigated a number of “research projects” into parapsychology, and has been a key figure in advocating for proper science in this area. His reviews of the “work” done by Daryl Bem and Robert Jahn, among others, exposed methodological problems that rendered their “results” completely meaningless.

Alcock has been important in criticizing the assumptions underpinning much paranormal “research,” particularly in his landmark book, _Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi_ , which outlined one of the biggest problems with “parapsychology” – that paranormal researchers start out with the assumption that “psi” exists and simply make up excuses and effects to explain their inability to observe it rather than accepting that the inability to observe “psi” is evidence it does not exist.

The disregard for the null hypothesis is only one problem out of many that Alcock has exposed. He’s also covered the extremely vague and often completely negative definitions of the subject matter, the unfalsifiable claims, the rampant methodological flaws, the twisting and abuse of statistical methods, the unreliability of effects, the irreproducibility of any “psi” effect, and the fabrication of excuses for the lack of evidence of “psi.” As Alcock most aptly said, “I continue to believe that parapsychology is, at bottom, motivated by belief in search of data, rather than data in search of explanation.”

Alcock’s work in the field of psychology has greatly contributed to our society, in the area of critiquing and disproving the paranormal and beyond. The rigor he has displayed in his academic career is matched by the wisdom he has displayed in his communication to the public. Dr. Alcock once said that “we all have pockets of irrationality, and those pockets tend to be activated at times we're motivated by greed or fear,” and he has shone the light of reason on them.

 

**Melissa’s Corner**

So, this is my little corner of the newsletter and I’ve got a story for y’all this month. It’s about how I became an atheist during my fourth year of college (out of five – yes, yours truly was a SuperSenior! Not quite as cool as a SuperHero.) Not only was I going to church every Sunday at the time, I was going to Bible study every Wednesday, singing in my church’s gospel choir, and working as the Girls Group youth leader. Believe it or not, I was the Ultra Christian Girl, had the purity ring and everything. I was also working my way through a degree in anthropology.

I loved learning about the norms and ways of life of all sorts of cultures, and all of the different beliefs and ideas they held. I didn’t think anything could shake my faith when I started my degree. As time went on, the idea that our beliefs just happened to be the right ones, and all the others were wrong and leading the rest of the world to damnation, bothered me more and more. Before, I’d known in the back of my mind that there were a lot of other people with different beliefs out there, but it was only over the course of my degree that I really internalized it. Also, I began to question the role of women in the church after learning about how sex roles vary across cultures. These questions led me to really examine the cases for God, and the cases against. I read and read and came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to support the existence of God – and I couldn’t believe anymore.

I didn’t know what to do. I started out with slowly going to Bible study less and less. When I came back for my last year of school, I got a job as a library monitor and dropped the Girls Group gig. You should see some of the trash people leave in libraries. Students are pigs. Used kleenexes, half drunken coffees, _once we had a_ _box of crickets_ _just sitting in the_ _History section_ _???_ (some of them escaped it was awful you’d reshelve a book and one of the little monsters would come flying right out at your face like some kind of microminiature ninja from hell).

Anyways, I went to a couple meetings of the college atheist and agnostic group (honestly it was a super geeky group but they were fun people and it was great to not feel so alone after some reaaaaaaally isolating months!) and someone from church found out and there was a kerfluffle – they tried to bring me back in the fold, I remember some of the girls saying I’d fallen under Satan’s influence and trying to organize an intervention. My friends from outside of church and the atheist and agnostic group helped me get through it.

To be honest, the worst part was telling my parents. The feeling of disappointing your parents is never nice, and not being able to explain _why_ I couldn’t be a Christian anymore (in a way that they understood) made it worse. The lowest point was when they said that they shouldn’t have sent me to college, that it “corrupted” me. They were so proud when I was admitted. I still remember how happy they were helping me move into the dorms freshman year. They’re getting better about it, but it still hurts to remember the sort of ambiguous attitude they had at graduation compared to how proud they had been at the start of the journey. It wasn’t how I had pictured my graduation.

I still love gospel music, though. Anyways, enough feelings and sad stuff, that’s my tale formonth! Stay cool, people!

 

**From the Desk of Dr. Strand: On Skepticism and the Media**

Academic research too often falls outside of mainstream visibility. I have long believed that education and outreach is a duty all of us in academia share. I’ve tried to live up to that duty by engaging in events and conferences aimed at the general public as well as producing works aimed at this audience alongside my academic output – this newsletter is one such project. It can be difficult to find the time for outreach in an already busy schedule, and trying to confront the lack of appreciation for the scientific process that has infected our culture can be frustrating, to say the least.

I have been resistant to interviews and other media appearances because of the disrespect for the scientific method so often shown by “journalists.” It is disheartening to see crackpots, frauds, and agenda pushers get so much uncritical attention from a media ecosystem that values the illusion of balance over the truth – the realms of television news networks and “blog-o-sphere” are particularly bad. From climate change deniers to psychics, there are charlatans of all types lining up to take advantage of the general public’s naiveté and ignorance. This is enabled by a media that values subjective individual narratives over the objective process of truth seeking.

When I have the opportunity towork with the media, I take a cautious but open-minded approach. It is important that those of us who are in the position to make the case for reason in the public discourse do so. This isn’t always an easy task, or even a desirable one. I’ve been thinking about what I’ve been doing, and what I haven’t been doing, on this front, and I will be working on keeping this assessment in mind moving forward.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Letters**

Dear Dr. Strand,

What is the difference between your prize and James Randi’s, besides that his is more famous?

PS I liked _Thinking Critically_ _When Confronting the_ _Extraordinary_ , great read!

-LaTrisha K., New York NY.

 

Thank you, LaTrisha. We have a lower profile and tend to deal with a broader range of paranormal “evidence,” while Mr. Randi’s foundation works more frequently with high profile “psychics” and others attempting to demonstrate “powers.”

-Dr. Strand

 

Can I buy your books on Amazon?

-Carlos C., Los Angeles, CA.

 

Yes.

-Dr. Strand

 

Dr. Strand,

Please accept this Bible as a gift. I know that the Lord loves you and wants you to know it. Please try reading it, just to see.

Love,

-Cindy W., Plainfield MA

 

Thank you for the gift, however, I am quite familiar with the Bible. If I may make a recommendation in return, I suggest you take a look at Russell’s _Why I Am Not a Christian._ Bertrand Russell had an extraordinary mind and there is so much we all can learn from him.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Just for Fun**

What’s the difference between magicians and psychologists? Magicians pull rabbits out of hats, while psychologists pull habits out of rats!


	3. 1505

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> This issue is a bit rough and hit or miss.

**1505**

 

##  **Strand Institute Newsletter**

Welcome to the Strand Institute newsletter! We have some super exciting news for you this month. Dr. Strand has an upcoming research residency at the University of Washington! Also, he’s being featured in a Pacific Northwest Stories production! Plus, another Person of the Month, another installment of Faithful and Fraudulent, a rambling review by yours truly, A JOB OFFER, and everything in between!

\- Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award**

Has not been awarded. Bring on those Photoshops, folks, I wanna make dat money!

-Meli$$a Baker

 

**Strand Institute Careers**

Think you can do my job? _Want_ to do my job? You may get the chance! Contact the Strand Institute and we’ll see whether you are fit to fill my shoes!

-Melissa Baker

 

**Highlights**

As you may have heard, I’ve agreed to share my yet to be solved case files with Alex Reagan of Pacific Northwest Stories, for the first season of her new show. It’s about “paranormal” investigation. This show is a podcast – which is like radio, for the Internet – called “The Black Tapes Podcast,” and we recommend you check it out at <http://pnwstories.com/> or <http://theblacktapespodcast.com/>. We’re very excited about this collaboration.

-Dr. Strand

I’ve just been granted a residency at the University of Washington, researching an outbreak of mass hysteria in Charlesworth, WA. I’ll be collaborating with Dr. Wallace Campbell and Dr. Violet Fan in Psychology and Dr. Alanna Coombe in Cultural Anthropology. We are teaming up to look into a pair of mass hysteria outbreaks that occurred in Charlesworth after a homicide in 1957 and more recently after the release of a video showing a person suffering a heart attack, which many viewers found disturbing. I’ll be heading out to Seattle in a few weeks.

-Dr. Strand

Work on _Epistemology in the Wild: How Scientists and Laymen Experience Learning and Knowledge_ continues. We hope to have some soft dates soon.

-Dr. Strand.

_Epistemology in the Wild: How Scientists and Laymen Experience Learning and Knowledge_ is a working title, so stay updated!

-Melissa Baker

This month I traveled to the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Bielefeld to meet with a couple of project groups I’ve been in loose consultation with. We discussed how psychology can engage with the methodology of other scientific disciplines, and how to develop the scientific study of religion. They've done excellent work in both psychology and religious studies using interdisciplinary approaches, and I look forward to seeing their future progress.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Strand Institute Person of the Month: Susan Gerbic**

Susan Gerbic is a skeptic activist involved in a number of important projects. Gerbic first became involved after discovering the _Skeptical Inquirer_ magazine. She went on to find the wider community, and began attending conferences. Her first foray into activism came after she realized the need for more rigor and skepticism in the realm of Wikipedia editing. After she found Wikipedia’s groups were unfriendly to new contributors, she teamed up with Mark Edwards and got to work. They introduced “Geurilla Skepticism on Wikipedia” (GSoW) at Skepticamp and proceeded to begin organizing through interfaces such as e-mail and Facebook. Gerbic continued editing Wikipedia herself, and expanded her network of trainees. She spread the word of GSoW throughout skeptic communities, attracting more people who wanted to learn how they could make a difference. This work is essential in improving and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia.

Gerbic spends much of her time educating new users on the basics of Wikipedia, identifying articles that need more research and improvement, improving the quality of citations on Wikipedia, an identifying references that could be useful in generating or improving Wikipedia content. Additionally, she launched the World Wikipedia project to educate Wikipedia editors in languages other than English. Another notable aim of GSoW is to keep the pages of skeptic activists accurate and complete.

In addition to her Wikipedia activism, Gerbic has participated in the anti-homeopathy campaign 10:23 with the Monterey County Skeptics. They intentionally overdosed on homeopathic “cures” to demonstrate that they are just water and have no effect.

Gerbic is particularly troubled by “psychics” who prey on those in mourning, and has collaborated with fellow skeptics to protest and expose those professing supernatural powers. This includes the protest against the notorious Sylvia Browne, where skeptics passed out information on how “psychics” trick people outside of Browne’s performance venue. She exposed Chris Coffey by heading a group of three who adopted false identities and discussed their fake dead relatives before one of Coffey’s shows within earshot of his assistants. This false information was incorporated into Coffey’s “psychic” reading, revealing his lies. She also worked with Heather Henderson to plant false information on Facebook that Henderson was not aware of, in a double blind experiment ahead of a reading with Tim Braun. While Braun did not use the false information Gerbic planted, all of his statements were false. Additionally, Gerbic was instrumental in generating skeptical coverage of reality TV “psychic” Tyler Henry.

Gerbic has been a leading light of skepticism in her work exposing “psychics” and bringing skeptical thought to Wikipedia and other areas of the net. The Internet, and the world, is a better place due to her efforts.

As an aside, I would like to thank anyone and everyone who has helped to remove some of the slanderous claims that tend to pop up on my Wikipedia page. “Godless Atheist Shill” is not actually my occupation, and I wouldn’t want anyone to be misled. If anything, it’s more of a hobby.

 

**Melissa’s Corner**

I’m super psyched for The Black Tapes Podcast. I’ve never been into podcasts before but while Alex and Dr. Strand were working on the show I got to talking to the intern from PNWS and suddenly I’ve got some hot podcast tips going on! Turns out that podcasts are much more fun than radio. Anyways, I thought the first episode of The Black Tapes was super cool at least. My voice even appeared in it! For like two seconds! I’m practically famous!!! It was awesome to hear Dr. Strand, especially compared to the ghost hunters that they had on. I’ve only gotten around to the first one so far. I can’t wait to listen to part two! I’m sure it will be just as awesome as part one and I remember the case that Dr. Strand and Alex talked about is super interesting, and I want to hear what they were getting up to in Cali without me!

To be totally honest I do make fun of Dr. Strand for being a big dork and an old fogie whenever I’m in his car or if he turns on the radio in the office, but all he ever listens to is the news… Not nearly as fun as the podcasts the intern told me about. But apparently now Dr. Strand’s discovered that he can just get Science Friday online. He was pretty pleased.Well, that’s Dr. Strand for you.

 

**Faithful and Fraudulent: Emily Dumont**

I had the opportunity to discuss Emily Dumont with Alex Reagan on her new podcast, and I think it’s a good opportunity to discuss her “work” here in the newsletter. Emily Dumont is a paranormal “investigator,” a “medium,” and a “clairvoyant.” Many of her books and papers misrepresent the “research techniques” which she uses. There are several inconsistencies between the claims she presents, the methods she reports using, the methods she has been shown to use, and the methods she should be using. Several years ago, some of us in the skeptic community expended significant effort in unwinding the labyrinthine inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding her and her “research” – the Strand Institute collaborated with Dr. Vogel and others to tease out the discrepancies between Dumont’s reported and actual methods a few years ago, and we were able to produce a comprehensive review of the work. The report consists mostly of comparisons between her publications, videos of her work, and interviews with coworkers; it thoroughly debunks any claims of evidence for the paranormal. I’d highly recommend that anyone interested in an objective, rational overview of Dumont and her record as a “researcher” take a look at it.

The “mostly unscrewed flashlight” and EMF reader tricks which Dumont is heard using (and which I am heard debunking) in Alex Reagan’s The Black Tapes Podcast has been among Dumont’s favorites for a long time. If you want a more in depth view of this fascinating phenomenon, I’d recommend watching Burkhard Reike’s video on it.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqNwGeXTQJk>

Dumont discusses this trick in her abortion of a book, _Ghost Hunting for Dummies_ :

> “Every up-and-coming ghost hunter or medium needs to know this key method for communicating with spirits, ghosts, and other beings. I’ve sworn by it since as long as I’ve been exploring those strange mysteries beyond the normal. Some lesser apparitions might not have the conscious mind or the strength. These are things like residual energy presences and aura imprints. Others such as full body apparitions will be able to communicate. If the flashlight is just loose enough they can press down on the top and light it. I find a mini maglite 2 cell model is easiest to work with.”

Unfortunately, people like Dumont persist in peddling these perfectly explainable, and indeed fascinating, natural phenomena as “paranormal.”

As for EMF readings indicating “ghosts,” this is a long debunked piece of nonsense. While there is some evidence that subjects reporting an experience of “haunting” may correlate with variation in magnetic fields, this is attributed to the physical effects that magnetic fields have been found to have on organisms. The data does not support the existence of “ghosts,” “spirits,” “apparitions,” “poltergeists,” “haunts,” or “demons;” it supports the theory that a major contributor to reports of the paranormal is the mind’s reaction to and attempts to parse stimuli from the environment – especially subtle stimuli that does not consciously register. Queues that trigger automatic processes in the mind are an interesting topic. Their relationship to magical thinking of all sorts and particularly the experience of “paranormal” and “religious” phenomena is especially fascinating. In fact, it is much more fascinating than the alternative: throwing up our metaphorical hands and calling everything we don’t understand “magic.”

In this vein, one of the hallmarks of Dumont’s “work” is a reliance on the mind’s tragic inability to keep track of what is real and what it has imagined. This is particularly evident in embarrassing mess that is _Past Lives and Your Wedding_ , in which Dumont expounds at length about how the dreams and stray thoughts that come up during the wedding planning process, as well as the preferences and style of wedding planning one prefers, can actually yield information about “past lives.” For example, Dumont writes this on the subject:

> “If you have had a particularly happy or blessed marriage in your most recent life, you will probably have a laid back planning style and a growing sense of calm as the day grows closer. But, those who were unlucky in love and failed to marry or had a rocky marriage will probably experience a confusing anxiety mixed with excitement… You should meditate before sleeping by staring at a vanilla scented candle for ten minutes. Then, turn your pillow three times, and tuck a picture of your fiancé under your pillow with a blue ribbon, and then sleep. This will make you dream of your weddings in your past lives.”

There is a lot of new age nonsense that revolves around attributing meaning to emotional states and the “subconscious” – as a psychologist, I am acutely aware of this branch of pseudoscience. It is important that we demand higher standards in our examination of neurological functions that occur without our conscious notice of them. We must all reject the concept of the “subconscious” as some mystic power, and must insist upon rigorous scientific analysis. Otherwise, Dumont and her ilk will continue to push the idea that sensations, dreams, and other automatic functions “prove” that supernatural forces exist. This is the crux of the problem with Dumont: any good psychologist knows that the mind is very complex and prone to drawing spurious connections, but unfortunately she relies on such experiences to support her “work.” While Emily Dumont’s subconscious is undoubtedly a very exciting place, it is not a source of scientific evidence.

Verdict: Faithful. Keep in mind, it can be a lot easier to believe in something when your source of income depends on it.

 

**Melissa Reviews: Emily Dumont’s _Chained in Darkness, Struck by Evil_**

So,I’m pretty into adventure/fantasy YA and paranormal romance(yes, I’m twenty something, yes, I am a total dorkfaced dorking dork). I don’tread Emily Dumont’s fiction because, well, let’s just say whips and chains aren’t on my list of acceptable Valentine’s gifts,but one of my buddies is a big fan. She’s read most of Dumont’s work(though even she won’t touch the notorious _Delicacy and the Dark Centaur_ ) _._

My friend told me I might get get a laugh out of Dumont’s less popular,somewhat obscure _Chained in Darkness, Struck by Evil…_ Let’s just say the rest of this review is pretty harsh so if you’re a fan you’ll probably hate it, and although there will be no graphic detail it will include ADULT ONLY topics, because Dumont does write erotic fiction, so children if you’re reading awesome but this part is the opposite of educational so just skip ahead (I’m just going to say upfront that there was more BDSM than I personally would ever want to read about but that’s just me and it’s Dumont’s thing (Dr. Strand says BDSM needs a definition (he says the Oxford Dictionary gives “bondage, discipline (or domination), sadism, and masochism (as a type of sexual practice)” (I can’t believe I made my boss google BDSM, clearly I have taken a wrong turn in life (maybe I really do need Jesus (not really (I’m a strong independent skeptic who don’t need no Father nor Son nor Holy Ghost!))))))).

_Chained in Darkness, Struck by Evil_ follows the lurid story of Emeline de Rochefalcourt, a descendant of French nobles who fled to America after their families were slaughtered during the revolution. The ghost of her great great whatever grandmother who was killed by Jacobins follows her around and gives her advice. Her parents were famous ghost hunters who disappeared mysteriously, leaving Emeline and her siblings in foster care with a pair of neglectful, abusive atheists. I was already rolling my eyes.

~~Emily~~ Emeline grows up to be a beautiful, successful medium, ghost hunter, award winning writer, and professor at an Ivy League university. Also, sassy. Dumont makes sure we know she’s sassy. All the guys like her, but she thinks she’s plain because she’s not blond-haired or blue-eyed. Apparently white, brown-eyed brunettes are considered repulsive by our sick culture.

She dreams of her parents trapped in some creepy maze, and a man who is dark and sexy. So she goes to her department and asks them to give her money for the completely legitimate academic project of… Ghost hunting her parents. Her arch nemesis, Reginald Strumplebrick, tries to stop her because he is a mean skeptic. He’s bitter because he isn’t as successful as her and also because she won’t sleep with him.Reginald’s the generic representation of Dumont’s critics; there are many conversations where he’s a shouty strawman for Emeline to look good against. He is arrogant, smug, rude, cruel, and generally unpleasant. He rants about the scientific method (says a lot more about Dumont’s issues with reality than it does about science).At the beginning, it is established that Reginald had a wife who mysteriously disappeared. It’s implied that he bribed the police investigating it. Because only someone ridiculously awful would disagree with ~~Emily~~ Emeline.

So, Reginald Strumplebrick tries to stop the department from showering de Fancypants with money, but everyone else is like “no you’re amazing and beautiful have all the money.” She tries to track down sexy dream man by talking to ghosts and spirits. It doesn’t work. But that’s OK, she runs him getting coffee. His name is Laurent au Grailouse of the Devil’s Birth clan of vampires, who serve some demon overlord and do violent sex rituals with him. Also, they’re French. Laurent doesn’t want to serve a demon so he left, but he’s still dark and angsty (read whiny) because of his past. He says he’ll help Emeline if she proves to him that she can understand his pain, so they do some BDSM and talk about their feelings. (In this universe all hotels have Gothic décor and sex aides).Laurentsays the demonimprisoned her parents in some paranormal dimension because they were going to discover him.

The pair randomly meet a tall dark psychic called Matt Grayson in a Waffle House. He tells them the Devil’s Births have put out a hit on them. A vampire assassin arrives and tries to kill Emeline. The heroes kill him instead, but Matt Grayson is shot. Emeline and Matt share an _extremely_ disturbing blood-soaked make-out session, and then Emeline performs some sort of sexy séance to help Matt reach the other side, while grandma ghost watches and comments. Since the scene is continuous, this all seems to happen in the Waffle House bathroom. Hot.

Then it cuts (did they just leave Matt’s bloody corpse in the bathroom? poor staff!) to the pair tracking a vampire. But, oh no, Reginald Strumplebrick has publicly accused Emeline of being a fraud, and they are surrounded by journalists. Emeline humiliates Reginald in an argument and he storms off. The protagonists kill more vampire assassins and convince Laurent’s brother Lycidas to join them and have another séance.

They contact the ghost of Strumplebrick’s wife, Caroline. She describes, in unnecessary detail, how Reginald murdered her and buried her in the woods when she tried to run away from his domestic abuse. Ghost Caroline says she’ll help them fight the Devil’s Births if they help convict Reginald. Emeline agrees and goes to the police. Corrupt Guy doesn’t listen so Laurent feeds from him until he dies. Somehow, this wins over the other police. Strumplebrick is arrested, imprisoned, and publicly humiliated. Caroline reveals the demon’s name, Speibal (no, it’s not clear why Caroline knows this).

They raid the Devil’s Births and Emeline gets captured by Speibal the sexy demon. He doesn’t kill her since she is so sexy and powerful. Instead, he does BDSM stuff to her and “drinks deeply of [her] sparkling aura, until [she] could feel the excruciating pull of the primal darkness of pure evil throughout [her] lush body, from the tip of [her] girlish nails to [her] warm, feminine center.” In response, Emeline sasses him.

Laurent and Lycidas form a team of renegade vampires who free Emeline while Speibal does his “ritual of ~~plot device~~ refreshment.” They fight the loyal vampires and win. Emeline releases her parents and there is a reunion, complete with ghostly granny.

At some point, Speibal possesses Strumplebrick because suddenly he and Emeline are facing off in a dark and “gothic” alley. To kill Speibal she must kill the vessel (in a lot of disturbing detail) and perform some blood rite to banish the demon. She’s drained from the fight, so she sacrifices herself to complete the ritual.

The Angel of Death arrives. Strumplebrick disappears into a hole in the ground; Caroline tearfully thanks her and fades into the sky. The Angel of Death turns to Emeline, impressed by her noble sacrifice, her “spirit,” and her sexiness. So, they do BDSM sex and afterwards she wakes up in the hospital surrounded by her family, friends, and vampires. The end. I tried to draw some moral or conclusion from this. I failed. 1/5 would not recommend. 

PS: in editing, Dr. Strand said this was the most “flagrantly absurd” thing he’s ever read. He actually seemed annoyed (or just busy, it’s hard to tell the difference). To be fair, Dr. Strand tends to read pretty high brow stuff (I remember him calling _Paradise Lost_ “some light bedtime reading”) so I guess learning how lowbrow the popular culture can be ticks him off. I just thought “flagrantly absurd” was a funny way to put it!

 

**Letters**

We’ve already seen an increase in letters since the release of The Black Tapes Podcast – as such, we will no longer print all letters we receive in the newsletter.

Why can’t you disprove the [case #1] case from The Black Tapes? I’m not really a believer but it sounds pretty convincing. Especially regarding the pictures.

-Kenny M., Miami, FL

Thank you for asking; we’ve had a lot of inquiries about it and it’s something I want to address. The biggest issue in the unsolved case referenced is the unwillingness of subject #3 (C) to allow her son, subject #2 (B) to be tested in a rigorous setting. Subject #1, (A), underwent many rounds of testing during the initial investigation. These tests involved taking a large number of photographs and videos of the subject in controlled lighting, using controlled equipment. While the first of these tests yielded some unusual data, we reviewed our testing procedures and ran more tests, which were unable to reproduce the results in subsequent runs. C has not allowed B to undergo any such tests, which means that the Strand Institute is not able to complete the tests necessary to investigate the case scientifically. High standards of rigor and reproducibility are key to scientific investigation, and the inability to conduct experiments that meet these standards has prevented us from proceeding.

-Dr. Strand

Doctor Strand,

There is a ghost in my house. I know it’s haunted. It brings sadness and fear. I can hear it, rustling around, hiding. It knows how to hide from audio recordings. Come investigate and I’ll prove it. Then I’ll buy a house that isn’t haunted with the money. If you really are honest you’ll come.

-Kati B., Buffalo, OK

We recommend that you get your house checked for carbon monoxide levels immediately. Call your gas provider, tell them it is an emergency, and that you need someone to check for gas leaks. Carbon monoxide poisoning can be deadly.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Just for Fun**

“My poor knowledge of Greek mythology has always been my Achilles elbow.”


	4. 1506

**1506**

##  **Strand Institute Newsletter**

 

 

Hello and goodbye, my dear skeptics! It’s my last issue of the Strand Institute newsletter, here to make your month that much better! We’re bringing you our person of the month, our definitely-not-person-of-the-month, your letters, an old new friend, and more! So put on your skeptic hat, grab your favorite reading beverage, and sit down for another awesome month of updates from the Strand Institute.

-Melissa Baker

 

**Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award**

Has still not been awarded. Don’t send me your paranormal experiences anymore, I won’t be here! But you can keep sending all of your spooky stories to the Strand Institute, because Dr. Strand’s new assistant will be here to read them instead!

-Melissa Baker

 

**Highlights**

While reviewing content of one edition of The Black Tapes Podcast this month, we received news that our previous colleague Travis Collinwood, has passed away. Travis was a enthusiastic, striving young man, and I am deeply saddened to hear that his bright future has been cut short. He was passionate about I would like to extend condolences to the family and friends of Travis.

-Dr. Strand

 

[Travis_onsite_goofy_face_12.jpg]

_In memory of Travis Collinwood_

 

We were alarmed to hear about the kidnapping of Sebastian Torres. We are happy that he has been found and returned home safely. We’ve been in touch with the Los Gatos PD.

-Dr. Strand

 

My residency in Seattle has been extended for another three months, at least. I will be teaching an interdisciplinary summer graduate course titled _Mythology, Religion, and the Scientific Method: Contradictory or Complementary?_

-Dr. Strand

 

While Dr. Strand is in Seattle, I’ve been holding down the fort here in Chicago. It sure is lonely without Dr. Strand around. Everything is in order here! It’s quiet… _too quiet_.

-Melissa Baker

 

Dr. Strand attended the annual Whilton Ghost Hunters Summit in Whilton, Oregon. Every year bunches of ghost hunters descend on Whilton to talk about their line of work, and Dr. Strand went to add his input. He provided a voice for skepticism and rigor among a group of people who think “I totally saw a ghost, man,” is scientific proof of supernatural shenanigans. Unfortunately, the rest of the conference critters were super rude and used some pretty mean names that were way uncalled for. Despite it all, Dr. Strand was able to provide a strong voice for reason at the conference.

-Melissa Baker

 

I would like to add that no one at the Whilton Ghost Hunters Summit came close to providing evidence for anything of a paranormal nature. It consists mostly of bored, superstitious people who went out and bought a cheap EMF meter and want to believe that they are involved with something exciting. The biggest name there was “psychic” Lana Rodriguez, who was plugging her new book, _She Sees Dead People: My Life as an On-Call Clairvoyant._ Rodriguez pretended to see and talk to an “apparition” at the lunch buffet. Sadly, most of the other attendees took this as “proof” of ghosts despite the fact that Rodriguez was very obviously acting and there was nothing in any way out of the ordinary about the tray of sausage rolls she was having hysterics over.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Strand Institute Person of the Month: Harry Houdini**

Harry Houdini is famous for the daring escapes he performed over the course of his life, but less well known is his work debunking spiritualists. Houdini became a stunt-man and magician in the circus at a young age, and became famous after his escape acts brought him great acclaim as a Vaudeville performer.

Houdini was one of the trailblazers in the now-long-established tradition of performers using their knowledge of illusion to debunk con artists employing the same technique. His legacy helped inspired other magicians to follow in his footsteps, such as James Randi and Dorothy Dietrich. He wrote a number of articles demystifying his illusions, to educate the public on how such tricks are the result of skill and clever manipulation, rather than literal magic. It was in the 1920s that he became passionate about debunking mediums. As a magician, he was able to look at illusions with a keen professional eye that experts in other field lacked. That experience allowed him to observe the techniques many “mediums” and “psychics” used to fool their prey, and he was able to expose many frauds that had previously tricked investigators and scholars. Houdini, as a member of the Scientific American committee, was an early skeptic to offer a cash prize for proof of supernatural abilities. As his debunkings became more famous, Houdini began donning disguises for séances, bringing with him a journalist and a policeman. The most famous “medium” Houdini exposed was Mina “Margery” Crandon.

In order to educate people on the tricks of the “spiritualists,” Houdini wrote _A Magician Among the Spirits_ with the help of C.M. Eddy Jr. This work helped bring skepticism to the general public in an era when many did not have access to educational resources on the topic. Houdini was devoted to this mission, even when it cost him his friendship with Arthur Conan Doyle, a devout spiritualist who came to believe Houdini himself was a “medium” who used his abilities to block other “mediums.”

Houdini left a final unfinished project in the field of skepticism – he had commissioned H.P. Lovecraft and C.M. Eddy Jr. to write a book debunking “religious miracles,” but the project died with him. However, Harry Houdini has the unique achievement of helping debunk “spiritualists” from beyond the grave. He and his wife, Bess, agreed to a code that he would say to her if he was truly trying to communicate with her during a séance. After ten years of séances yielded no convincing evidence of Houdini’s spirit (there was one “spiritualist who broke the code,” but Bess was able to determine that this was faked, as later evidence corroborated) Bess officially ended the search. However, the tradition of holding séances for Houdini has been carried on by magicians. Most of these are simply for fun, and not meant to defraud the gullible.

 

**Melissa’s Corner: Goodbye!**

As I write this, Dr. Strand is eating some sort of reheated fish lunch with green stuff on it. I think the green stuff is spinach. It smells very… strong. He seems to like it, though. We had a debate earlier because I said that I watched that old movie version of _The Odyssey_ and I didn’t get why people liked adapting that so much when Paris and Helen were so much more romantic. Dr. Strand said he didn’t see how kidnapping the most physically attractive woman around could be construed as romantic even if it did start a war, and that Odysseus and Penelope’s struggle is the truly romantic tale. In the end I admitted he was probably right (OK, I honestly haven’t read all of the _Iliad_ or the _Odyssey_ so it was kind of hard to argue with anything). I guess the question is, why did people ever consider finding a hot chick and kidnapping her romantic in the first place? The point is, it’s weird to be moving on. I wouldn’t have believed it, but now I think I’ll actually miss arguing with Dr. Strand and rolling my eyes at his boring and/or gross lunches. I don’t want to be a PA forever, but I really do like working here. It’s one of those things that catches you off guard.

But, on the other hand, I’ve been accepted as a Master’s student in the Religious Studies program at the University of Illinois! (Don’t worry, I won’t be working with Professor Dumont, though I might have her for class… I hope she doesn’t read this newsletter (eeeeek!)) This month, we’ve been in the process of interviewing candidates for my replacement, and we’re happy to introduce the New Melissa (except she isn’t actually me because doppelgangers are not real and there is no evidence for them ever existing). New Melissa is super cool, I’ve gotta say.

I want to end with thanks. Thanks to everyone who I’ve had the chance to work with as a member of the Strand Institute, because I’ve gotten to meet and learn from some truly awesome people due to being here. Thanks to all you community members who read our newsletter, connecting with the outside world is (usually) really great and rewarding and I hope to follow Dr. Strand’s example and keep on promoting science and skepticism in the world and communicating about it in the future.Finally, thanks to Dr. Strand, for the great experience working here and for the help and mentorship professionally speaking as well as for being an amazing boss.

Goodbye, good luck, keep it level, and thank you!

 

**Introducing Ruby Carver**

My name is Ruby Carver; I’m taking Melissa’s place as Dr. Strand’s assistant. I’m glad to return to the Strand Institute; I worked here part time while in school. Speaking of the educational area, I have a BS and Masters in psychology. Dr. Strand also helped guide me when I was doing my master’s thesis. In the work area, besides part-timing here while in school, I’ve been a magician since high school; I’ve been doing it full time since finishing my Masters. For a few reasons, I’ve decided to sort of step back from that career for a period of time. As a passionate skeptic, I wanted a job where I could make a difference, which is why I’m so happy to be returning to the Strand Institute as Dr. Strand’s assistant. In fact, I saw Melissa was quitting in this very newsletter just when I was deciding that I needed to stop performing. My hobbies include reading and watching science fiction and fantasy stuff; and studying magic.

 

**Faithful and Fraudulent: Brayden Court**

Brayden Court believes that he was born again and that everyone who isn’t is probably up to something evil. Unfortunately, being born again doesn’t stop him from stalking and sexually harassing women. According to Court, this happens because they are temptresses and he is risking himself spiritually to bring them to the lord, so when he “slips up” it’s their fault.

Court has bounced in and out of holy grifting over the years. His main trick is speaking and prophesying in tongues. The great thing about prophesying in tongues, for a cheat or a crackpot, is that no one can prove or disprove anything you “say,” because you are just babbling meaningless gobbledygook and claiming it’s actually a holy language. That’s not to say that Court doesn’t believe his own fiction.

When not sexually harassing women, Court can often be found harassing them over their reproductive choices in a variety of creative ways, from screaming at patients outside of clinics that offer abortions, to stalking and harassing clinic staff; he has been questioned in relation to an arson attack that closed a clinic in Nebraska. Additionally, Court has been charged twice with harassment of clinic staff, but never found guilty. He’s been tied to a number of extremist anti-choice groups, and has pledged his support for Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. George Tiller in 2009. The constant harassment and terrorism that is inflicted on medical service providers and patients in the name of religious fundamentalism must be dragged into the light of day and met with critical examination and humanist values.

In addition to “prophesying” and campaigning against women’s rights, Court has collaborated with a couple of “faith healers” in his career. He started off with Jerry Marks in the nineties as an assistant, and has more recently worked as Caleb Mitchell’s right hand man in the fleecing seriously sick people industry. “Faith-healers” exploit people struggling with serious illnesses – extracting cash from them with promises of miracles that they of course fail to deliver, leaving the victim to struggle to once again accept their sickness. Oftentimes “faith-healers” have led their victims to forgo needed medical treatment, resulting in worsening health and sometimes death. Court and other “faith-healers” and their collaborators do severe psychical and emotional damage to some of the most vulnerable members of society just to enrich themselves. They are dangerous, and we must be vocal in campaigning for critical thought when it comes to these matters.

Verdict: Faithful.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Letters**

I would like to reply to some of the “advice” we have been getting about our case concerning “shadow figures” present in a picture of a child’s birthday party and his wedding years later, which was publicized on The Black Tapes Podcast.

No, we have not considered the “possibility” – or more accurately, the impossibility – that this individual or his family is being stalked by “Slenderman.”

“Slenderman” is a fictional character that was created by a man named Eric Knudsen on an Internet forum called Something Awful. Something really awful is the Strand Institute getting a multitude of letters from people who believe in “Slenderman” despite the fact that it is a fictional character, the origins of which can easily be found by Googling “Slenderman” and clicking the first result.

Seriously, everyone, it’s the first result. You have to go out of your way to miss the part about it being fictional.

Please, desist in sending us your theories about how Strand Institute cases are related to “Slenderman.”

-Dr. Strand

 

Dr. Strand,

I’m a postdoc who greatly admires your research and your investigation and your skeptical activism and your lecturing and your books and now the podcast you’re in too. What I want to know is how do you do it all? How do you do everything and keep a work life balance?

Enthusiastically yours,

-Jessica J., Toronto, ON

 

It’s a matter of remaining focused and keeping a routine. A routine makes it a lot easier to remain disciplined and organized. This allows me to efficiently divide my time and not get knocked off schedule.

-Dr. Strand

 

I would like to add that Dr. Strand does not have a work life balance. Dr. Strand has a work work balance. It’s not a lifestyle that is feasible for everyone.

-Ruby Carver

 

Dr. Strand, marry me.

-Candice V., Sacramento, CA.

 

No.

-Dr. Strand

 

Dr. Strand,

I’m a Christian, but I’ve been reading your newsletter since I started listening to The Black Tapes. I have faith in my religion and I definitely don’t agree with some of the things you’ve said on many topics but it’s good to hear an alternate perspective and there is still useful stuff. I like challenging myself! You should lighten up, though.

-Mike P., Billings, MT

 

Thank you, I’m glad to hear it. While I have been perceived as hostile on account of my unwillingness to mince words when discussing the consequences or validity of religion, I believe that engagement between believers and skeptics must be honest for it to be productive. Those of us who engage in skeptical thought are often asked to approach debate by first trying to ingratiate ourselves to believers, a premise which serves neither the truth nor those of us who seek it.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Just for Fun**

An anthropologist walks into a bar and asks, “why is this joke funny?”

-And that’s Melissa Baker, signing off!


	5. 1507

**1507**

##  **Strand Institute Newsletter**

 

 

Welcome to this month’s edition of the Strand Institute newsletter, in which you will find facts about the ideomotor effect, mass hysteria, highlights of the month, a short essay from Dr. Strand, and other exclusive content.

-Ruby Carver

 

**Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award**

We have not awarded the Strand Institute Proof of the Paranormal Award because we haven’t received evidence that constitutes proof of anything paranormal.

-Ruby Carver

 

**Highlights**

Dr. Strand hosted a workshop on researching stories and myths, and figuring out their origins, with the Seattle Skeptical Society. Both searching online resources as well as seeking out and evaluating primary sources were covered, as well as a discussion of fieldwork techniques in the discipline.

-Ruby Carver

 

We’ve been continuing to make progress with _Epistemology & You_. We think that it should be coming out sometime early next year.

-Dr. Strand.

 

 _Epistemology & You_ is a working title, and subject to change.

-Ruby Carver

 

Dr. Strand gave a talk on skepticism at the University of British Columbia. He discussed diverse cases he has worked on over the years.

-Ruby Carver

 

**Strand Institute Person of the Month: Stephen “Banachek” Shaw**

Stephen Shaw is a performer who goes by the stage name “Banachek.” Over the years, he has been an important activist for skepticism, educating the public on how various “magical” feats are performed and why people claiming supernatural abilities are either liars or experiencing some sort of apophenia or delusion, while balancing a stage career as a dashing mentalist and illusionist, and a consultant to other magicians. He makes sure people know he is a mentalist, who uses manipulation and illusion to entertain, and does not claim to be “psychic.”

Shaw collaborated with James Randi to pull off the Project Alpha Hoax. Along with Michael Edwards, Shaw infiltrated a “research” project on “parapsychology” and the pair successfully convinced the “researchers” that they were “psychic.” Remarkably, they achieved this despite agreeing to tell the truth if they were asked if they were psychic, and say that they were faking the results. They were never asked. The Project Alpha Hoax resulted in the obscenely deficient methodology used in the “field” of parapsychology being revealed for the world to see. It struck the credibility of para“psychology” at its core, and resulted in the shuttering of “research” labs engaging in the pseudoscience. Shaw also collaborated with Randi to reveal how “faith-healer” Peter Popoff was feed information via wireless radio transmission by his wife.

Shaw contributed greatly with his work in communicating with both researchers and the general public about the ideomotor response and how to read it. By explaining how mentalists like himself give the appearance of mind reading by reading muscle movements, he has been important to shedding light on how various “psychics” pull off their tricks and expanding the understanding of science rather than using it to promote ignorance from which confidence men can profiteer.

Shaw has been a high profile skeptic personality in the media, appearing as a voice of reason on a number of television shows. He is highly critical of “psychics” and the way that they prey upon the bereaved. Shaw has worked with the JREF to test extraordinary claims; for example, he was involved in a preliminary test of Connie Sonne’s claims of dowsing.

Over the years, Stephen Shaw has used his professional skills to educate rather than to ingrain ignorance deeper into our society and has been a great champion of the skeptical cause. For this, we thank him.

 

**Ideomotor Games and Mass Hysteria: the Charlie Charlie Challenge**

During my stay in Seattle, I’ve been working with Drs. Campbell, Fan, and Coombe, researching a case of mass hysteria. As this issue of the newsletter has developed a bit of an ideomotor theme, I thought that the outbreak over the “Charlie Charlie Challenge” would fit nicely into this issue.

The Charlie Charlie Challenge is a version of Juego de la Lapicera, or game of pens, a game with a long history among Spanish schoolgirls. The game can be played with two or four pencils – the four pencil version involves participants holding the pencils end to end in the shape of a square, and relies on the ideomotor effect. The two pencil version involves a piece of paper with quadrants labeled “yes” and “no,” with the first pencil laid on one axis and the second pencil balanced on top of it and aligned with the second axis. The pencil will drift towards either yes or no due to drafts or the breathing of the excited players. It is one of many “paranormal” games that involve looking for patterns in events that are ultimately random and meaningless, a crude form of divination.

This game gained traction on social media earlier this year, spreading beyond the Spanish-speaking world. It was passed around the English speaking web under the name “CharlieCharlieChallenge,” and gained the back story of a (often Mexican) “ghost” or “demon,” usually called Charlie. After a parody article appeared on _The Racket Report_ claiming the game had lead to five hundred deaths, the Fiji Sun passed on the report without bothering to check whether their source was a real news organization. In the aftermath, the game was banned by the Fijian Ministry of Education, and three teachers were interrogated over claims that they had forced pupils to participate. Additionally, in May four teenage girls in Tunja, Colombia were hospitalized after playing and diagnosed with mass hysteria. The high schoolers were soon discharged.

The explosion of the Charlie Charlie Challenge is a fascinating example of old ghost stories and ideomotor games being spread virally through the web. The strong denouncement from religious authorities mirrored the religious reactions to similar trends of the pre-Internet era. Muslim, Christian, and other religious officials quickly began to spread fear and tales of demons and other sundry evils, using the phenomenon as an excuse to fearmonger and thus promote their own agendas.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Ruby’s Corner**

Well, I used to work for Dr. Strand part time in school, but this is my very first month being allowed to touch the newsletter. Having to actually think of something to say is a lot of responsibility. I’ll try to deal with it.

I shadowed Melissa for a few days so she could train me. I part-timed here when I was in school I already had a good start; I already knew a lot of basics, like comparing allegory and folklore or how to classify the stories we get as hauntings, cryptids, government conspiracy, etc etc.

Melissa said that the newsletter is the Institutes's interface with the public, and that in many ways, the assistant’s most important job is to give it a personal face. Dr. Strand does a lot of things around here, but being personal is the assistant’s job. To be honest, I would probably delegate being personal if I were a bigwig and had underlings of my own; I definitely see why it’s part of my job description even if it’s not my strongest area. On the other hand, I’m great at filing, and can dazzle guests with a number of amusing illusions.

Dr. Strand has been back in Chicago to take care of a few things; he’s only here for a day and a half though. His collaboration with the professors at U Wash has been going really well and he brought plenty of stuff back for me to file. I tried some of Banachek’s mentalism techniques with Dr. Strand because we were talking about it in the newsletter and I’ve been reading copies of his book that the institute has. I was pretty excited to see them here, actually. Anyways I’m still pretty bad but Dr. Strand humored me for the most part. We had to stay late working on this, so we’ve ordered pizza. For my half, I chose pepperoni and green pepper. Dr. Strand picked spinach and anchovy. I think the weirdo who wrote in insisting that he’s a lizard person may have been right after all.

That’s about all I have for Being Personal. Coming back to Chicago is weird. My parents keep begging me to just stay with them but they’re driving me up the wall; now that I have a job I’m going to look for apartments.

-Ruby Carver

 

**Faithful and Fraudulent: Devon Williams**

Devon Williams is a member of the Executive Committee of the American Talking Board Preservation Foundation. He is a renowned talking board collector and “practitioner.” Williams has given a number of talks on the subject, and he runs a blog that shares an awful lot of maudlin ghost stories about people using talking boards to reach dead relatives. These kind of tales offer the worst kind of false hope to those in mourning. In his role as a member of the Executive Committee of the American Talking Board Preservation Foundation, he has promoted spiritualism and pushed for the American Talking Board Foundation to provide information about it.

Ruby found a few event notifications online recapping talks Williams has given at a high school. These apparently occurred at his children’s school, where he presumably has some ins. The fact that Williams has decided to foist his snake oil on innocent children was what sealed his place in our Faithful and Fraudulent series. Such indoctrination of our youth is completely unacceptable.

Verdict: Faithful.

-Dr. Strand

 

**Preface : Why I Won’t Debate a Creationist**

Putting aside the other issues inherent to debating a creationist (and there are many; this is by no means the only or even the primary reason), my fields of expertise are Psychology and Mythology & Religion. While I have a broad understanding of Earth System Sciences and have read extensively about the history of the world and the research that’s gone into understanding it, it’s not my field; I can’t discuss the minutiae of methodologies over all of the associated subfields that together yield all sorts of different evidence for evolution and the big bang. Someone who is familiar with a wide range of research methods and technologies in the physical sciences is a more suitable candidate for taking on such a discussion in a serious matter. That being said, it’s no mean task for even the most prepared candidate.

-Dr. Strand

 

**From the Desk of Dr. Strand: Why Debating a Creationist is Hard**

No, it’s not because creationism is a strong position, or a viable position, or in any way reasonable or defensible. However, there is a factor that makes it difficult to communicate why creationism is wrong in a debate – and the same principles apply to other pseudosciences. My Intro to Earth Sciences professor explained this phenomena to our class, and it was one of the more useful things I learned in school. I believe it’s well worth passing on here.

The thing about creationism is that there is evidence that supports it. You could fill up a whole room with evidence supporting creationism, more data than anyone could read through. The problem that creationism runs into is that there is much more evidence that contradicts it. If you could fill a whole room with evidence of creationism, you could fill hundreds, even thousands of rooms with evidence for a 4.5 billion year old, slowly changing earth. And while there is many rooms worth of evidence that contradicts creationism, there is no evidence that contradicts an old earth, none that contradicts evolution – none. Let me be clear: there is absolutely no evidence that provides any convincing contradiction to the theories of an old earth or the theory of evolution.

The problem is that communicating the depth and breadth of data we have on the geological history of the world in the course of a debate is, if not impossible, then near to it. Debates by nature involve highlighting key points, which makes it easier for creationists to muddy the waters – the techniques vary, but this typically involves tactics like jumping from place to place and throwing out inaccurate and obscure points fast so that there is no time to pick them all apart. This gives the audience the illusion that there is significant evidence of creation (or whatever phenomena is being debated) when there is not. In fact, creationist Duane Gish’s fondness for spewing misinformation at an impossible to follow rate and skipping between topics lead Eugenie Scott to christen the approach the Gish Gallop.

The truth is that our world is a big, complicated place and there is more information out there than any one lone student could ever hope to process. Unfortunately, it is easy to pick out pieces of information that support nearly any idea and simply ignore any contradictory information. This kind of curation is particularly prominent in this era of the Internet; it is now quite common for people to sift through the mountains of information available online and simply pluck out things that support whatever crackpot idea they want to believe in, whether it is creationism, homeopathy, or ‘white genocide’ (which, disappointingly, is a segregationist conspiracy theory and not one of those new bands). At the same time, the amount of misinformation, disinformation, forgery, and fraud makes it easy for people to dismiss out of hand even valid evidence if they do not wish to believe it.

This kind of flawed evaluation of facts is inherent to the human mind. The way we evaluate evidence and process the information in front of us is shaped by numerous cognitive biases. The belief bias is the most pertinent to this discussion: it refers to the bias which causes our evaluation of the strength of a logical argument to depend upon our belief in its truth or falsehood. While cognitive biases are now a thriving subfield of psychological research and affect every aspect of our decision making, the topic is seldom discussed when evaluating our public discourse. A thorough understanding of these biases can help us to develop self-awareness and to learn to become more objective, but even so, they will always be with us. The only hope we have of mitigating them is normalizing their analysis in the course of debate, something we are very far away from and which we are moving towards at a glacial pace, if indeed we are moving at all.

It is essential that we reject the mode of thinking that allows scrounging around for factoids that reassure us of our current beliefs in our discourse and in our education systems. We must teach each other not to seek out facts for our beliefs, but to build up our beliefs based on the facts. Unfortunately, seeking out information to support an argument is something most of us have been taught and are familiar with, something we often have begun to learn in elementary school, while critical thinking skills that focus on accessing the big picture are much more rarely taught.

These misconceptions are embedded into our minds and our culture deeply, like a sliver under the skin, undetected, that causes reoccurring infections. Too often, we mistake human knowledge as an individual endeavor. Our prevailing cultural narratives lionize individual understanding, privileging the myth of the lone genius over the reality of collaborative research and discovery. Specialization, as the old adage goes, is knowing more and more about less and less until you become an expert and know everything about nothing. No one can be an expert in everything; we must rely on others to be experts in areas outside of our own specialization. Of course, we can learn about a variety of things, but there comes a point where we must choose what to invest our time in.

Learning to understand the world more objectively is fairly simple, but not necessarily easy. We must accept that we cannot know everything, and that we must chose what we wish to specialize in and what with which we are content to merely dabble. Additionally, we must develop an understanding of the institutions humans have developed to aggregate and share our knowledge. Not necessarily an exhaustive understanding, but enough to be able to navigate these institution effectively, enough to be able to trust the expertise of others, and to discard obvious falsehoods.

Creationism and its kin persist because, in the face of a vast, complicated world that offers us unanswerable questions and short lives without objective significance, many find it easy and comfortable to latch onto the simple answers: objective truth, at a scale that is comprehensible; objective meaning, from a higher power; endless life, with a reward for good behavior; I am sure you get the gist. However, the comfort of superstition will only lead us to reenact the follies of our ancestors. Superstition cannot make predictions, as science and mathematics do; it cannot serve human understanding or human progress. This, I believe, provides material justification. I shall continue with what is perhaps a more idealistic take on the subject. For us to truly thrive, we must reconcile with the world we live in. To understand, we must accept the limitations in our understanding. To live meaningfully, we must realize that nothing will provide meaning for us, that it is up to us to supply our own – to ourselves, to each other. Holding on to facile beliefs about our world denies us these experiences.

 

**Letters**

Welcome Ruby! How do you like working for Dr. Strand? Are his good looks intimidating?What name did you use as a magician?

-Sheldon W., Nashville, TN

 

Thank you for the warm welcome; I really like working for Dr. Strand. The job is interesting; I get to see new things everyday. Dr. Strand knows so much about so much stuff, so it’s cool to get to learn from him. Um, no, I’m not particularly intimidated by Dr. Strand’s looks; that would make my job rather difficult. He’s old enough to be my dad anyways.

I perform(ed) as Ruby the Riveting. Ha ha.

-Ruby Carver

 

Dr. Strand,

What metaethical philosophy do you subscribe to? Are you a skeptic there too?

-Doug G., a ethical naturalist, San Bernardino, CA.

 

Yes, I am an error theorist. Personally, knowing that my moral beliefs are false in that they are not some sort of objective truth does not make them any less satisfying or dear to me, but I know there are many who find the stance unsatisfying. That being said, I’m not a professional philosopher, much less a professional meta-ethicist, and I respect that there is a lot to debate in the field of meta-ethics. The thing I have a problem with is when people claim that they have access to some ethical truth through supernatural means and don’t back it up with evidence.

-Dr. Strand

 

Dearest Richard Strand,

I am writing you this excerpt to enlighten and upskill you on the mightily abundant verification; of the actuality of God. The fact of the matter is that things Change. For their to be Change there must be exertion on the article in question. Theretofore, there must be a Will, for there to be Change in accordance that naught can Change its own form. Obviously this conveys that external to the Material Universe is God.

Furthermore is the Essentiality of Causality. All Things, have Cause. For there to be a beginning of Things; then there Must be a Beginning of Beginnings, and HE must be The Beginning of Beginnings. Without God, there can be no Cause, and there would be Nothing. As such, the wise man knows that God, Is.

And in a final argument, there is the obviousness of Time and Contingency. Things can be, and not be. Things stop being. For things to be, there must be something. Because, nothing is nothing, so there could not be something. The thing before the something is thus, God.

As I elucidated obviously; Atheism is a heinous trespass over God and you must desist in it henceforth. Otherwise, you will be forthwith delivered into the arms of the burning maw of the Inferno for your SINS.

-Tyler P., Durham, NC

 

1) Thank you for this letter, it made my day.

2) Dr. Strand is well aware of the arguments for the existence of God, and he has publicly addressed much more coherentversions of all the arguments in your letter. Based on your letter, I think he understands them better than you do. But congratulations on googling “arguments for god.”

3) That thesaurus doesn’t make you sound smart.

-Ruby Carver

 

I love PNWS Stories! What’s it like working with them? What are Nic and Alex like? Are their personalities like on the radio? Are you guys buddies? I totally wish I could be their friends Dr Strand you don’t know how lucky you are. Please tell us all about them. And I like your voice too, you totally have a voice for radio.

-Garry M., Boston, MA

 

One e-mail would have been enough, Garry. Anyways, since it seems to be a particularly burning question, Nic and Alex are both good people and it’s been an interesting experience to work with them, even thought they can sometimes let themselves get too caught up in making things into a story and forget to stop and think rationally. Usually, life does not fit into a neat narrative and we are simply groping about for little bits to shape into a story so that we can pretend our lives have some sort of objective meaning. Regrettable, to be sure. However, we all have our foibles, and this is not unique by any means.

I think Alex and Nic are fairly similar to what you hear on the radio. I would say that we are professional colleagues and friendly acquaintances, especially Alex and I – I work much more closely with Alex than with Nic. Alex has a sweet and cheery disposition. Her willingness to see the best in people can be something of a double edged sword, as I believe that it can sometimes cause her to lend credence to statements that do not warrant serious consideration. Alex swears more in real life, however. She is good at maintaining a lighthearted attitude while staying serious about work – she’s always giggling, but also always poking her nose as far as possible into whatever she finds, which I’m sure you’re already aware of. Nic is a nice guy; he does a good job looking out for Alex as a producer. He’s professional and courteous; out of everyone at PNSW stories he’s been the best about effective and respectful collaboration. Pretty laid back guy. Good looking, in an oddly generic sort of way. It’s like he walked out of a Stock photo or something.

You might want to write them instead of me about this. I don’t really know them all that well.

 **-** Dr. Strand

 

**Just for Fun**

Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? We don’t believe in higher powers!


End file.
